Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

What about differences in kind? Do you see a difference between bad morals and bad breath? Bad self-care and bad faith? Bad driving and bad bank robbery?

Quote:

Yeah smoking pot isn't as bad as cheating on your wife when it comes to the social consequences. But it doesn't make harming yourself any less tragic.

So then, if the harm is the source of tragedy (which in turn somehow intimates a moral dimension, I suppose), doesn't it matter in terms of the "tragedy" (along with any and all of its moral implications) whether the harms are similar or different -- in degree or in kind?

Quote:

12pm is brighter than 12am... they are both still 12 o'clock.

A social convention; they are different "times of day." Just like using the same word "bad" to describe someone who is a poor driver and someone who commits murder.

Quote:

Doing drugs isn't as bad as killing a child

.

OK.

Quote:

They are both bad for the human heart. My grandfather said "There's no such thing as a little cyanide." There's no such thing in my opinion as "a little bad for the human heart." It's in your best interest to avoid both murder and drug use to be healthy.

1. Kind of like saying a trip to the store and a trip around the world are both trips -- they require movement.

2. If you are going to avoid all behavior that you judge just a "little bad for the heart," I suspect that's going to include a lot of stuff. Why would you suppose everything on your list is on everyone's list? Should the lists be the same?

3. So murder is unhealthy? Hence tragic? Hence bad? Or is murder just bad irrespective of whether it harms the murderer? Murder is to be "avoided?" Or is it better expressed -- "Thou shalt not kill?"

What about differences in kind? Do you see a difference between bad morals and bad breath? Bad self-care and bad faith? Bad driving and bad bank robbery?

So then, if the harm is the source of tragedy (which in turn somehow intimates a moral dimension, I suppose), doesn't it matter in terms of the "tragedy" (along with any and all of its moral implications) whether the harms are similar or different -- in degree or in kind?

A social convention; they are different "times of day." Just like using the same word "bad" to describe someone who is a poor driver and someone who commits murder.

OK.

1. Kind of like saying a trip to the store and a trip around the world are both trips -- they require movement.

2. If you are going to avoid all behavior that you judge just a "little bad for the heart," I suspect that's going to include a lot of stuff. Why would you suppose everything on your list is on everyone's list? Should the lists be the same?

3. So murder is unhealthy? Hence tragic? Hence bad? Or is murder just bad irrespective of whether it harms the murderer? Murder is to be "avoided?" Or is it better expressed -- "Thou shalt not kill?"

I went to bible college and majored in theology, so yeah
"Thou shalt not kill" is in fact a perfect statement to me. In the Hebrew context of that quote there is also no distinction in degree between "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery." Though the social consequences are different for these crimes, they are measured equal in degrees of baddness.
Also it is said according to the law that "hatred" is equivalent to "murder". To hate a man is to murder him in your heart, thus judged as the equivelant.
There are extreme comparisons between social justice and moral justice. Moral justice judges bad as bad regardless of the degree. Social justice judges bad according to how much trouble it causes society at large. Our criminal justice system operates according to social justice. It punishes in degrees equivalent to how much of a burden on society you have been.
Moral justice is more simplistic. It judges wrong as wrong regardless of the social consequences. It measures spiritual consequences equal between murder, hate, thievery, adultery and self abuse. Even though the social consequences for these actions are different.

So the real question is which form of justice should a man follow?
The answer in my mind is both.
Adhere to the laws and consequences of you land, while understanding that imperfection of the heart is something that you need to over come, even if that imperfection isn't considered criminal.

Moral justice is more simplistic. It judges wrong as wrong regardless of the social consequences. It measures spiritual consequences equal between murder, hate, thievery, adultery and self abuse.

I contend that while a number of moral codes may well condemn murder, hate, thievery, adultery, and "self-abuse," a code that is incapable of discerning differences between these acts is not just, simply judgmental.

Additionally, unless you are saying "self abuse" means "any use of intoxicants," there is a principle of "self-care" at work as a posited moral principle, and the measure of "abuse" is the trigger for a moral judgment "x is bad." Which makes it less black and white in the context of all the ways people have of "hurting their hearts" more than just "a little bit."

For example ever meet a dry drunk? Abstemious and self-abusing. A two-fer.

I contend that while a number of moral codes may well condemn murder, hate, thievery, adultery, and "self-abuse," a code that is incapable of discerning differences between these acts is not just, simply judgmental.

Additionally, unless you are saying "self abuse" means "any use of intoxicants," there is a principle of "self-care" at work as a posited moral principle, and the measure of "abuse" is the trigger for a moral judgment "x is bad." Which makes it less black and white in the context of all the ways people have of "hurting their hearts" more than just "a little bit."

For example ever meet a dry drunk? Abstemious and self-abusing. A two-fer.

It's a conversation between legalism and obectivism then.
Legalism, hatred is not a jail- able offense. Moral-ism, hatred is the same as murder regardless of whether nor not you serve jail time. Social consequence hold no bound in objectivism.
Also,I distinguish between the condemnation of an act and the person committing it personally. Mistakes do not define a human for me personally.

Self Abuse does not equate the use of an intoxicant, it equals the abuse of an intoxicant. Abuse is the key word here. It is wrong and bad to abuse yourself. What ever the degree, self abuse should be unacceptable for a rational being, regardless of social consequence.

I advocate that we should endeavor to act appropriately within our moral, social, and humantarian circles of influence. Some of our actions are governed by law, some by our faith, some by our morals, and some are governed by other areas of influence within our lives. Our actions are fallible and subject to hypocracy, if not social, moral or legal retribution.

The quantification (or comparative justification) of a discouraged activity is simply a petition for absolution of guilt and responsibility. I argue that we are concerned with justifying to ourselves our actions. Every thing we do seemed like it was a good idea right? The simple fact is that people make mistakes every day. The nature of vices is that of corruption, which is why many people choose to avoid or minimize their exposure to vices. Can some people navigate their behavior to allow greater interaction with vice-like behavior? Absolutely. This is why most of us take a live and let live stance on many vice behaviors...we understand there are those who can control their interaction and exposure to vice behaviors and undertake them in a responsible manner. We also expect they accept the responsibilty for the consequences, accidental or otherwise, derived from their behavior. But then there are people who don't.

To return to the OP, in this thread we are talking about smoking marijuana in association with attending class. Looking at it another way... would you smoke pot in front of your children, your peers, the police? Or, is this a question that is acceptible to ask because of the perceived lattitude towards that behavior? I believe smoking marijuana is at best socially acceptable only in certain social circles.

I will say that if I choose not to smoke, I will never need to accept responsibilty for injuring someone while under the influence of drugs. Similarly, if I choose not to drink and drive I will never need to accept responsibility for killing someone while under the influence of alcohol. I have seen too many friends destroyed by drugs and alcohol so I choose not to allow those elements to influence my behavior.

It's not deciding, sometimes the sky is just blue, 1+1=2. I don't get to say 1+1=4 and be credible. It is not my choice, it just is. I can also consider 1+1=4 is incorrect without hating the man who mis-computed. I can think that doing drugs is harmful and counter productive to Budo without thinking the drug user is defined by that action.

Anyone who thinks they "decide" what is right or wrong for others is self-righteous. If you want to do drugs I'm not going to decide that was a wrong choice for your life, but I have a right to think scientifically proven self-destructive behavior is very tragic.

You can use drugs all you want Mary, I mean you can get high then do Aikido if you want. I don't think you are a bad person for it.

Whoa up, Maggie -- I seem to have struck a nerve here. I'll admit that I probably used poor diction in my choice of the word "decide", but I think you jumped to some unwarranted conclusions here. Let's step back and see if we can't make sense of this.

First off, when I said "decide", I didn't mean that in "deciding" what is right and what is wrong, you thereby create some objective reality of what is right and wrong. It is of course an insane proposition to believe that you can create an objective reality of the "1+1=2" sort merely by deciding that it is so. What I meant instead was, how do you distinguish between those things that are "1+1=2" objective-reality wrong, and those things whose rightness or wrongness is a matter of subjective judgment? You can reply "bad is bad" if you want, but a tautology won't answer my question. I want to know if you have some kind of system of moral reasoning that allows you to distinguish between the two categories of "wrong".

I'd also like to say that this discussion isn't about me and my habits, and I think comments like "You can use drugs all you want Mary" verge on ad hominem of a particularly fraudulent type. There's plenty of "If you refuse to virulently condemn practice xyz, you must be a practitioner" rhetoric in the world; let's not add to it here.

To relate this to aikido and to the subject of this thread, I train with someone who, I am pretty sure, uses marijuana for medical reasons. He has never said so and we have never discussed it, but I know some things about his medical condition and I have a nose. The subject of an aikidoka using marijuana is therefore not an abstract one for me, in which I can take an absolute position that is not tested in real life. I've often been accused of wallowing in shades of gray...well, guilty as charged, I guess. Black and white do exist, but sometimes reality forces you to admit that there's a lot of gray as well.

Your statement seems logical and obvious, however, I would caution anyone making up "Rules and Responsibilities" of the martial artist.....simply because they don't necessarily apply to everyone (especially in different cultural contexts).

I'm pretty sure the responsibility of caring for one's body is pretty universal in the martial arts. I, for one, have never heard an exception.

Quote:

Re: the arrogant and narrow minded high ranking folk....do you have nothing to learn from them? Does their arrogance preclude them from being excellent martial artists? If nothing else, you observe them and say "I won't be like that...." Do the living shihan you like their scotch and tobacco get kicked out of the budo club because they don't live up to everyone's standards.....?

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I only meant that we ought not blindly accept something (especially something not directly related to aikido technique) as a good idea simply because it comes from a person of high rank.

Quote:

It's a given that taking a mind altering substance and then training is a bad idea but, what someone does outside the dojo, the personal choices that person makes, are really not IMHO up for anyone else to judge....until you've walked a mile in their shoes and all that....

I don't mean to judge anyone. Like I said before, if someone has a good reason for doing something, that's all well and good. I'm just having a hard time imagining such a reason.

From a recent "Journal of Neuroscience" article researchers found cannabinoids impaired the bodies circadian rhythms in mice. Very similar mechanism occur in humans so the effect is likely to exist as well.

From my previous years of personal research "cough, cough" I'd have to concur. I still think it is 1994 or there abouts.

From a recent "Journal of Neuroscience" article researchers found cannabinoids impaired the bodies circadian rhythms in mice. Very similar mechanism occur in humans so the effect is likely to exist as well.

From my previous years of personal research "cough, cough" I'd have to concur. I still think it is 1994 or there abouts.

Not quite: it's actually 1998. I'm looking forward to playing that Prince song this year at the New Year's Party. After that, it's to the bunker with me: I hear that Y2K thing will be something serious to deal with so I'm not taking any chances.
...Gotta say though, I sure feel old for a 20 year old! Oh well. Best not to dwell on it.

Strange things happen when one does not get enough sleep! If I was a cicada would my circadian rhythm cycle differently? Smoke enough and these types of questions seem really and truly cosmically important.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

One of the most competent aikido Sensai I ever trained with turned up late, didnt warm up (said- its been years since I warmed up) and started the class by saying "dont ask me where I was or what I smoked last night".

I thought I was hearing things but two other people later said they heard the same thing.

It certainly didnt seem to effect HIS ability, understanding, focus, etc. His skill is acclaimed, and not just by aikido people.

But thats HIM, not you. Like everything, it depends on the individual. If I smoked marijuana before training I doubt I would end up turning up there ... I'd probably stay at home and look at the view.

What I dont like is getting that odd wiff of beery breath off certain individuals at times.

(Sorry Mary, but...)
Hi Doc,
Would you be willing to elaborate? One of the reasons I ask is that I consider the "Just Say No" approach to have done more damage than good, on the whole...Particularly among those who are inclined toward "counter-culture" attitudes.
Take care,
Matt

(Sorry again, Mary...If there's anything I like more than feeding the trolls, it's feeding zombies...maybe I'll look up some Z.F.A. meetings )

I think (my two cents) that the bottom line is: how can we reach an altered state of conscience that may lead us to superior experiences or a diverse and more profound perception of the meaning of a kata?

The question in itself could be legitimate, the means not.

We often label as "geniuses" persons who suffer of a mental pathology that makes them able to perform, for instance, amazing calculations that "normal" persons can't do mentally. Autism is one of such pathologies: at the price of being utterly unable of social interaction, a few of these persons become able to perform extremely complicated mathematical operations mentally.

However, labeling them as geniuses, is a misnoming. In these persons a mental barrier fell and they now reached a type of neural network where these computations can be made overcoming instantly the resistance that in "normal" people is there.

And yet it's a pathology. Why? because the mental resistance that is there must not be vanquished instantly - as a pathology or a drug could. It needs to be conquered consciously.
There seems to be a significant difference between attaining an "alternative" mental status while you still possess the integrity of all your mental faculties and you overcome your inner resistances with their cooperation, and attaining it while your faculties are compromised and the resistence, rather than conquered, is simply abolished.

So, you should not be high on the mat - however, you may strive to train so hard that the mat sets you high.

I read that in some traditional schools you had to train till complete exhaustion. Then you had to train a few hours longer, for _that_ was the real training and the rest was preparation.
if you want an aiki drug, then _that_ ought to be your drug of choice.